Sunday, December 09, 2012

Roman Catholic Church to Cameron: "You are out of your depth"

Joseph Devine, Roman Catholic Bishop of Motherwell, is a feisty, robust and forthright sort of church overseer - the type who doubtless takes the Catholic Herald and at one time might have been beheaded or burned at the stake for asserting a dogmatic spiritual authority over the temporal power of the king.

The Bishop has apparently written a terse and testy letter to the Prime Minister which is rather critical (to say the least) of sundry government policies and of the Prime Minister's whole moral worldview. The Bishop, it might be observed, has form in this, having previously criticised Mr Cameron for 'surrounding himself with secularists'.

Unfortunately, His Grace has been unable to acquire a copy of Bishop Joe's Epistle to the Cameroons (if any reader or communicant can oblige, your treasure will be in heaven), so we must depend on the secondary account of The Scotsman. In summary:

The apparent disconnection between the Prime Minister's assurances and the Government's actions relating to religious liberty in the ECtHR 'only serve(s) to compound our perplexity about the imperfect fit between your statements and actions. You appear to be creating a political culture in which words mean nothing'.

The bishop then asks: 'on what basis can you expect anyone – Christians in particular – to trust or respect you?”

Noting how Roman Catholic adoption agencies have been made to feel 'not welcome', he says: 'That feeling... is the legacy of the last Labour government. Sadly, many of your government’s policies show no sign of reversing that, despite your plausible public relations exercises'.

On the Prime Minister's reproach of the Church of England over women bishops to 'get with the programme', the Bishop advises: 'Disagree with decisions by all means, but such graceless comments were indelicate to the point of being offensive. And this from a Prime Minister belittling the nation’s established church. Hardly an example to set for society in general and especially for the youth of this country.'

He than asks: 'So where next for David Cameron’s spiritual mission?... While I cannot speak for other creeds, let me be quite frank with you. So far as the Roman Catholic Church...is concerned, you are out of your depth. We will take no finger-prodding lectures from anyone or any group devoid of moral competence.'

There are some who might say that the Prime Minister would be wholly justified in responding to that criticism with a phrase including the words 'pot', 'kettle' and 'black', or with some allusion to glass houses and the casting of stones. Certainly, no Roman Catholic bishop in Ireland would presently be so bold.
But Bishop Joe then prophesies: 'I suspect it is only a matter of time before you go one step further and outlaw the teaching of Christian doctrine on sexual morality on the grounds of discrimination.'

David Cameron is basically completing what Blair began: Religious freedom 'under your premiership...is no longer being respected in the UK'. And in one final barb, the Bishop observes that the Christian Church has lasted for 'two millennia...and all this amazingly without any direction and guidance from you or your peer group'.

He ended the letter 'Yours Truly', which is jolly nice and Christian of him.

This is a most pleasing rant, to which No10 has apparently promised a comprehensive response. Some will think the Bishop a doddery old fool who speaks on behalf of the medievally-minded and bigoted; others will recognise his apostolic authority to speak truth to power. If any of His Grace's readers or communicants are matey with Bishop Joe, a copy of the correspondence in both directions would be most appreciated.

179 Comments:

He calls a 'spade a spade' "'I suspect it is only a matter of time before you go one step further and outlaw the teaching of Christian doctrine on sexual morality on the grounds of discrimination.".

Absolutely right! This would begin the erosion and then possibly by degrees the extinction of our basic freedoms - of religion, of speech, and of association, by a process of incremental steps.It is a process which the EU has perfected into an art form.

One minor criticism, No British Prime Minister would take the "severe step" as described.That would be left to others, namely the existing raft of "equality" laws and the arcane workings of the ECHR.

There is something about men married to tattooed ladies, with that shared belief in permanence of fine graces that will one day resemble the mask of a Joker, the antithesis to that which makes a human a human:- those who have nothing, because they are in the world but not of the world.

In an undeveloped conscience, pressured by feminism, boy David is trying to behave just as the priests of the Church of England had done, to be all things to all people by removing every wall of natural defence; to the glee of the inverts to Islam, Communism and Erotocism, who await their final victory over every man, woman and child in the broad church called NuUK.

Love it, absolutely love it! Devoid of moral competence - Cameron to a T. He needs to get with the programme, get out his Bible and start reading.

What a shame we don't have more bishops of this calibre in the C of E instead of the snivelling miserable and treacherous bunch of placemen like the Bishop of Buckingham who argues in favour of gay marriage when he has promised before God to uphold and promulgatethe doctrine of the church AS RECEIVED.

It won't work. Cameron doesn't care, and won't care so long as he perceives his policies as being necessary to securing swing voters.

And insofar as that is correct (opinion polling notwithstanding), Tory voters will ensure this remains the case for as long as they continue to vote for them.

I've got to the stage where I shake the dust off and go and live like a Christian, and rejoice for as long as doing so doesn't land me in front of a judge, whereafter I shall rejoice in prison - or more likely, penury and community service.

Since the US presidential races when Obama the supporter of SSM beat Romney the opponent of SSM, Dave seems to have had some sort of epiphany. Dave seems to think that because Obama is black and way cool, and because Obama won after supporting SSM, the same will work for the Conservatives.

He sees the future. Gone will be stable society, and instead civil war between secularists and religious, as they fight it out, as a largely disinterested and somewhat thick public watch from the side lines. We Christians are fighting for our lives, would we all but realise it...

It's a book written for its time and with an speficially intended audience. However, one of its core themes is that leaders at that level operate on a necessarily different moral plane to individuals. Blair understood that very well, bless him.

Not denying that. It is a leadership manual par excellence. The leader must be prepared to rule in a ruthless manner if required. However, people should be aware of this, and reflect on what a ‘leader’ we have in Cameron. Perhaps the next time, the Conservatives won’t make the same mistake...

The way Mr Cameron (and the likes of Sir Tony Baldry) are seeking to bully the CofE into accepting women bishops, something the RC Bishop HG quotes mentions, might have a bearing on the so-called guarantees that Mr Cameron is having us believe he’ll provide to protect religious groups from being forced to conduct homosexual weddings – i.e. they are absolutely meaningless. A Guardian report http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/07/david-cameron-same-sex-weddings said, “governing bodies of each faith will be able to opt-in or opt-out of holding gay marriages; individual parishes will not be able to adopt different positions.” Therefore the way that Mr Cameron wishes to force churches into line is to bully their “governing bodies” , especially no doubt the CoE General Synod. If the Guardian report is correct, the plan is clear: to eventually force churches into holding homosexual weddings and no individual church or parish will have an opt-out.

You're not the only one who's read The Prince, DanJ0, and if you think that the quality Machiavelli referred to as virtù is what Cameron is demonstrating, you really need to get out more. Here's another, less well known, literary comparison: Cardinal Mazarin in Dumas' Twenty Years After, a sequel to The Three Musketeers. Protege of the unabashedly wicked (and dare one say, Machiavellian) Richelieu, Mazarin was a rather wimpish and hesitant villain, always sniffing the wind to see which way it was blowing before he acted, and then going with it, he lacked any semblence of the virtù which Dumas willingly ascribed to Richelieu. He didn't act, he reacted. Remind you of anyone?

Oh, and good on the bishop: like I always say, we're the Catholic Church - and we're back!

To add to my comment above: And as, I understand, the CofE, is legally required to conduct weddings for persons eleigible to marry in England, no individual parish will be able to protect itself by opting out of holding any weddings. The CofE may be in a safer position if it was disestablished.

Right then class, someone mentioned clerical abuse of children. We know who were responsible, don’t weHomosexuals !!!Well done. That’s all of you remembering that. Now, what does Mr Cameron want to do to please his homosexual friendsPlease sir, he want’s them to get marriedQuite correct that child. What will effect will that have ?Sir, it will only encourage them more sir. They’ll want to adopt and everything sirVery good, that boy. Now, for normal society, is that a good thing or a bad thingBad thing, Sir !!!Very good, now off you go and play, and don’t talk to those shady men hanging around the gate.

Corrigan, I'm not suggestting Cameron himself is a leader in the way Machiavelli was advocating, just that he may well be deliberately taking advantage of prevailing winds on this issue in particular. I'll just set the confrontational "really need to get out more" bit aside, I think, for the preserving of the peace here.

The agitation in favour of same-sex marriage is one more symptom of a pervasive and corrosive sentimentality. That should be no surprise, as much of it originates on the west coast of the USA, headquarters of the global sentimentality industry. The homosexualist lobby demands absolute equality with heterosexuals, claiming the right to express their love in the same way. In the words of Tina Turner: "What's love got to do with it?" Marriage is founded on sex. If humans reproduced asexually, all the love in the world would not have brought about the institution of marriage, which is as old as humanity's awareness of sex and of what it leads to, i.e. children.This fact is established in law. A marriage does not come into being at the time of the ceremony (however that may have been performed), but when it is consummated. If it is not consummated, that is grounds for annulment in the eyes of church and state. Annulment is the official declaration that there never was a marriage; it is quite distinct from divorce, which ends an actual marriage.What consummation involves for a heterosexual couple is a matter of common sense. It is implicit in biology, in the obvious physical complementarity of male and female, and does not need to be made explicit. That is not the case with a homosexual relationship.What would be required to consummate a homosexual union? Or, to put the question another way, if one member of a homosexual couple were to seek an annulment on the grounds of non-consummation (absolute equality, remember), what would he or she have to convince the court had NOT taken place? I can form some ideas of how two men might consummate their nuptials, but my imagination fails me in the case of two women.This is the sort of grotesque speculation one is driven to, once common sense and tradition are abandoned in attempts to satisfy the clamour of self-absorbed sub-groups for imaginary rights.

michael: "A marriage does not come into being at the time of the ceremony (however that may have been performed), but when it is consummated. If it is not consummated, that is grounds for annulment in the eyes of church and state."

The State doesn't check if consummation has occurred, it relies on a complaint by one of those contracted by it. One of the expectations in the form of marriage is that the couple have sex. The contract is null and void if one party doesn't deliver and the other party holds them to it. The issue only arises if one party complains and there just needs to be a means of determining if the initial terms of the contract have been met. Even a simple signature would do.

You ! This is the forth time this year you’ve been brought before me, and you’re only 13Yeah judge, I just like doing crime, seehmmm The care home says you are all but out of controlYeah, I tell THEM to go to their roomsWell, I sentence you to be adopted by that married gay couple over there...NOOOOO !!!Take him over.I’ll kill myself, I WillWould you really ? Must make a note of thatFor God’s sake, they look like they’re sexually active ! I’m finished as a youth hero !

Belfast said ..."Cameron doesn't care, and won't care so long as he perceives his policies as being necessary to securing swing voters."

Oh I'm sure the swingers will vote for the Conservatives and the homosexuals will climb on Cameron's back.

CorriganI'm sure you'll agree, 'Education of a Christian Prince' by Erasmus is a more worthy read than 'The Prince'.

Sincerity as the servant of the people is praised as a virtue by Erasmus. Machiavelli advocated control through manipulation, fear and political force. Erasmus, wanted the prince to be loved and to govern justly and benevolently.

Joseph Devin has given exactly the response I have been advocating to this Government which is attempting to destroy the moral foundations of our Society in an attempt to placate minority pressure groups(and to keep in step with EU demands regardless of the affects on our Country.)

Our Government will possibly do what no one else could do which is to consolidate the varying Christian groups and unite them against a common enemy namely the humanists who desire to sweep away all that Christianity stands for(aided by Government officials who want to be seen as 'liberal' and 'humanistic'even though this is leading them into a 'moral quagmire ' in which they will eventually sink bringing the rest of Society down with them.The evidence of this already happening is around for all to see ...the question is 'How bad will it have to get before they wake up?.The answer I fear is ....'considerably worse.'

Your Grace,The Bishop is brave and bold to lift his head above the parapet in this day and age, bearing in mind the potential finger pointing.You can't tar every one with the same brush, just as all policemen are not bent and SOME politicians are not crooked. Times were when a man of his stature would be respected and listened to. Not so now. The secularists have taken over the reins of being infallible and beyond criticism. Far from being Medieval in approach, Gods principles are unchanging which is very inconvenient to those who seek to bring the church into the 21st Century.

One problem for religious posters who fear that the moral end is nigh re gay marriage, or that this will lead to the end of civilisation, reflect on this :

The birthrate is already in decline and has been for a while and more and more children are born outside of marriage and by cohabiting straight couples, i.e. 'living in sin', we have the largest teenage pregnancy rate in europe...

All good signs of the moral high ground , guarded by the Churches, which Britain occupies before gay marriage is introduced,by the secular humanist hordes, no?

Your Grace,The 'moral high ground' does not belong to the Church or to society. God's teachings and his ordinances are the 'high ground'. The decline has been as a result of creeping liberalism throughout recent times and attempts to make the church 'relevant' to society today.A time has come when those who know the truth must say, 'enough is enough' and stand up for God's truth, not man's interpretation of what is right or convenient.

Erasmus, wanted the prince to be loved and to govern justly and benevolently.

Actually, Dodo, so did Machiavelli; the difference was that Machiavelli was more jaundiced in his view of the human condition. He believed that it is sometimes necessary to take one step back in order to take two forward. The classic misunderstanding of Machiavelli lies in the famous - or infamous - question, is it better to be loved or feared. Most people who haven't read him say that Machiavelli's answer was that it's better to be feared. Well, yes, he did, sort of, but if you go back to The Prince and read the actual section where he addressed this question, you'll see that the entirity of his answer was much more nuanced than a simple "better to be feared". In fact, Machiavelli's musings on land, fear and hatred could have been written with the Israeli problem in mind.

LondonVicar: "And all this, remember folks, is to please some 1% of the population."

1.6% of the population attend weekly CofE services and slightly fewer attend weekly Catholic services. Also, if one follows some of the arguments here then same-sex marriage is part of a wider and longer-term theme of liberalism and individuality. On that basis, a large majority have, through their actions on sex outside marriage and divorce, chosen not to follow Christian sexual morality. I'd keep away from the numbers for justifications if I were you.

In a few year's time Cameron will be an ex-Prime Minister and an ex-leader of the Conservative Party. His promises on not forcing churches to conduct homosexual 'marriages' therefore have no significance whatever.

Since secularism has been, is, and will always be the best defence of religious freedom, Devine's criticism of Cameron is not so much the mark of a doddery old fool as it is of someone who is barking mad.

There was not, after all, a lot of religious freedom under the non-secular rule of the Roman church when the Albigenses were being massacred.

Strange how those who criticise moral relativism are so quick to demand the freedom of religion to break secular laws for themselves, while denying freedom of of religion to everyone other than themselves historically.

And at the same time claiming to represent eternal verities.

There really does seem to be something about religion that blinds people to irony, as well as otherwise addling the brain.

This pontificating 'priest' in what he represents is an affront to humanity.

"When confronted with heresy, she (The Catholic Church) does not content herself with persuasion, arguments of an intellectual and moral order appear to her insufficient, and she has recourse to force, to corporal punishment, to torture."H.M.A. Baudrillart, Rector of the Catholic Institute of Paris, in "The Catholic Church, The Renassance, and Protestantism", p 182-183.

Should anyone take notice let alone trust a man who voluntarily partook in the following oath?[-

"I, _____, now in the presence of Almighty God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the blessed Michael and Archangel, the blessed St. John the Baptist, the holy Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, and the Saints and the Sacred Hosts of Heaven, and to you my Lord, I do declare from my heart, without mental reservation, that the Pope is Christ's Vicar-General, and is the true and only Head of the Universal Church throughout the earth, and that by virtue of the keys of binding and loosing given to his Holiness by Jesus Christ, he has power to dispose heretical kings, princes, states, commonwealths and governments, all being illegal without his sacred confirmation, and they may safely be destroyed. Therefore, to the uttermost of my power, I will defend the doctrine and his Holiness' rights and customs against all usurpers of the Protestant authority whatsoever, especially against the now pretended authority and church in England and all adherents, in regard that they be usurpal and heretical opposing the Sacred Mother, the Church of Rome.

"I do denounce and disown any allegiance as due to any Protestant king, prince, state, or obedience to any of their inferior officers. I do further declare the doctrine of the church of England, of the Calvinists, Huguenots and other Protestants to be damnable, and those to be damned who will not forsake the same.

"I do further declare that I will help, assist, and advise all or any of his Holiness' agents in any place wherever I shall be, and do my utmost to extirpate Protestant doctrine, and to destroy all their pretended power, legal or otherwise."

Oath Taken by a Perspective Catholic Priest, from the Manuele Romanum,.as recorded in Congressional Record of the U.S.A., House Bill 1523, Contested election case of Eugene C. Bonniwell, against Thos. S. Butler, Feb. 15, 1913.

Scaping the barrel a bit there, Deadnought with the fabled Jesuit Oath. They're everywhere you know scheming and plotting.

The old Catholic urban legend, around since the Reformation: the Church is out to undermine free governments because it is interested only in raw power.

A familiar tactic to attack any position the Church takes in the public arena without ever addressing the issue itself. I mean, why bother to argue ideas when you can simply appeal to visceral anti-Catholicism?

Catholics and their priests are a fifth column within society that could rise up at any minute and overthrow the present order. Manipulated by foreign priests —particularly the wily Jesuits —Catholics are always just a moment’s notice away from armed insurrection at the behest of the Pope.

Don't ommit the sex abuse scandal either. Always good to have a fall-back position.

Groan...not the Jesuit oath, purleeeze. If you knew anything about Catholicism you would know that the Jesuits are about the most distrusted order within the Church. Most traditionalist Catholics consider them to have gone native. The last time I was in a Jesuit run church, as it happened, the Mass was being celebrated by the newly installed bishop, who took the opportunity to put one over the Jesuits bows by reference in his sermon to certain priests "transcending" the magisterium. Get a grip, Dreadnaught.

sec·u·lar·ism 1. Religious skepticism or indifference.2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

The inference is, that only Secularists can write the law and everyone else must be equally yolked to it. Hence, Communism, the most secular of all, stands at the top of the multi-faith European Star.http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-N70bNbdtUeo/UINTc9875lI/AAAAAAAAAlo/qETtM997554/s1600/Europe+for+all.jpg

This is how the National Secular Society can boldly write:

"Secularism is a principle that involves two basic propositions. The first is the strict separation of the state from religious institutions. The second is that people of different religions and beliefs are equal before the law."

Faiths are not equal, that is why they are termed "white" and "black". Some celebrate the living, others celebrate the dead to protect them and to harm their enemies. Just like sexual practices, some celebrate life, others bring disease and depravity.

Bringing them equal before the law invites cultural suicide... which is another pleasurable existance for some.

That light and dark should masquerade as one before the law, reveals the living-dead of the beholders.

Young lady got 11 months locally for kicking and stamping on the head of a man brought down by her partner. When asked by the court why she did it, she replied she had lent the fellow twenty pounds to buy heroin and he wouldn’t pay it back.

Sounds like a secular individual, the product of secular teaching in a secular state education system. But that’s alright eh, David B, Dreadnaught et al, at least she was spared the horror of religious teaching...

Jesus said all this will come to pass. Cameron is only flirting with the fancies of this world because he thinks it is OK to cherry-pick from the Christian Faith and add secular and worldly notions if it suits pagans and the unchurched.

Show me one case of a death committed in the name of atheism, as opposed to, say, communism, fascism or religion.

I don't think you will find any, and, should you fail, I trust you will have the honesty to not only never come out with this falsehood ever again, but to stand firm against those who propagate that sort of ...misapprehension, to be kind.

How often have we seen exact quotes of Hitler on this site showing his dislike of atheism and Darwin, both, yet the liars for Christ still quote him as some sort of Darwinist Atheist.

Face it - religion is seriously destructive of any sort of moral compass.

The kind of claptrap we've just heard from David B is absolutely typical of the rhetorical drivel put into the mouths of the ignorant by the likes of Richard Dawkins. We live in an age when stupidity is celebrated as some kind of paradoxical sign of intelligence, and the pathological desperation to believe in your own intellectual superiority is the trademark of the New Atheist. How the hell Communism can possibly be deemed as somehow separate and different from atheism is an act of intellectual gymnastics so contrived that it can only be deemed deliberately malicious, for only the mentally retarded can honestly believe them to be different. You want names of people killed in the name of atheism? Here's one you should be proud of

Show me one case of death in the name of Christ by a Christian who loves their enemies. The problem with the stance that "atheism doesn't kill" is that it requires us to pretend that atheism has nothing to do with various historical forms of Communism, Facism, Nietzcheanism etc. etc. ad nauseam.

In fact, atheism is a central part of a number of very distasteful political dogmas, and can no more be effaced from criticism of those ideologies than Christianity can be effaced from the Crusades. But just as not all atheists are tyrannically minded, nor are all religious people - and in fact, I'd be more than willing to mount a defence of much of historical religious persecution by pointing out just how central the political aims of secular powers have been to their creation.

This Catholic bishop deserves an award. He has really hit the nail on the head. His reproof of a government that seeks to conceal its material incompetence by parading its moral shallowness is well-deserved. Devine indeed.Actually I know rather how he feels. I have often thought the same thing not only when reading the letters of ministers making excuses, but hearing the arguments of "secularists" on blogs like this.

As a point of fact. Hitler used Darwin's Theory of Evolution to justify removing the "weak" from the society.

Interestingly the Nazis seemed to tolerate the "macho" homosexuals?

Speak to some Germans. Rather than relying on GCSE History or the BBC.

Like the Wiemar, we are getting fed up with politicians of all the main parties that offer the same policies that are failing big time.

By continually acting without honor - carrying on from Tony's example, but actually taking dishonor one stage further. "Call me Dave" is making it easy for anyone coming along and saying "Try me, I am not a democrat, but I will get things working again and it will be safe to go out at night etc"

So you shouted at woman and put her down. So now I suppose you now feel like a real man David.

"One problem for religious posters who fear that the moral end is nigh re gay marriage, or that this will lead to the end of civilisation, reflect on this :

The birthrate is already in decline and has been for a while and more and more children are born outside of marriage and by cohabiting straight couples, i.e. 'living in sin', we have the largest teenage pregnancy rate in europe.

All good signs of the moral high ground , guarded by the Churches, which Britain occupies before gay marriage is introduced,by the secular humanist hordes, no?"

I happen to agree with you. Nobody has taken this up but gay marriage is just another nail in the coffin of society rather than any particular turning point.

SOME Church leaders have for many years condoned or excused sinful acts for reasons I cannot fathom.

I agree some (many?)in the Church have been complicit in going down the road we have traveled and an increasing number are now not at all liking the part of town that we have arrived in.

No they didn't. The Nazis put homosexuals in the camps. Do you therefore have any historical evidence to support this assertion? Note that "The Pink Swastika" doesn't count as history let alone evidence.

Historical accuracy is important. We shouldn't go beyond what history will sustain.

YES Yes Yes, Quite right I know and well done of course. But why is it being left to an RC leader ( once again)to say what all evangelical, charismatic Christians know in their bones. Where are you C of E bishops?Elim pastors and AOG elders, Grab the microphones and shout about what this pusilanimous, shifty and deceitful "Tory" ( ha ha!) government is doing to our Faith

Interesting Carl. Unusual for the Inspector to need to put you right. The warrior Rhoem, who had half his nose shot away, was so influential he could have led the NAZIS into what would have been a disastrous conflict with the German Army. He had to go.

Also, when Wilson, Kepple and Betty performed the sand dance in front of Goebbels, he stormed out. He said that the NAZIs had enough problems with homosexuality in the ranks without the two men reminding him of it with their ‘interesting’ routine, or sentiment like that...

I only just got back into the trench before the first bullet arrived. I did not expect it from your direction but....

I must admit that the references are not ready to hand. However, this link http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_in_Nazi_Germany

Has a number of good (OK) references (It also has an American flag on it so it must be trustworthy!)

They certainly put SOME homosexuals in the camps. I wasn't there myself at that time so if you want first hand knowledge I cannot help you there.

My main point was that Darwin's Theories helped the Nazis propaganda machine by making what they did seem both logical and moral.

Tony and Dave both seem to have an approach to Government where behaving honorably is almost laughed at or even despised. Do as we say not as we do, seems to be commonplace. So if honor does not matter anymore.....

Corrigan: "How the hell Communism can possibly be deemed as somehow separate and different from atheism is an act of intellectual gymnastics so contrived that it can only be deemed deliberately malicious, for only the mentally retarded can honestly believe them to be different."

I'm clearly an atheist and I'm a liberal of the JS Mill tradition. I value diversity, I favour individualism, and I think the State should be have a pretty limited role in society. Atheism and liberalism work together quite happily. On that basis how can anyone think that atheism and communism are not separate and different things since my politics are nothing remotely like those of a communist? At best, the core metaphysics holding the worldview held by atheists and communists together are same. But in terms of necessity that's about it, isn't it? For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not mentally retarded either.

Someone the other day here was trying to make out that the theory of evolution natural selection proposed by Darwin and what is sometimes called Social Darwinism are the same thing. At least, that's how it came across.

Can I just say that the analogy of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia are a bit inappropriate when comparing and debating the Cameron gay marriage issue, as tempting as it is to do so in a polemical fashion.

I might not agree with Cameron on this, but to suggest that it is anything like those two terrible ideologies is quite wrong and there needs to be a sense of proportion here.

I doubt we will see people being sent to slave labour camps or people being exterminated en mass for simply disagreeing with gay marriage.

"On that basis how can anyone think that atheism and communism are not separate and different things since my politics are nothing remotely like those of a communist?"

Maybe not politics but you do share consequentialism in common.

A "morally right" act (or omission) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. Trouble is it rests on your's or the Party's definition of a "good" or "bad" outcome".

J.S.Mill was a hedonisitic utiliatarian - the paradigmatic example of a consequentialist moral theory. This holds that what matters is the aggregate happiness; the happiness of everyone and not the happiness of any particular person. Pleasure is held to be a moral good.

Trouble is their is there no awareness or reference in this theory of what actually constitutes "happiness" for either the individual or the collective. Seeking "pleasure" and avoiding "pain" - not much to base one's life on.

The logical flaw in your argument is that while it is possible to be a liberal and a Christian (initially, anyway) it is not possible to be a Communist and a Christian. Communist and atheist go together like obverse and reverse of a coin. It is impossible to separate them, and indeed, no serious Communist (including the first one) has ever tried.

Corrigan, communism is a political, social, and economic theory. Atheism is the state of being without a belief in a theistic god or gods. Whilst communism has an atheistic attribute, it's much more than just that attribute. Moreover, you mistake 20th century socialist instantiations operating as totalitarian regimes for communism. It's all just a bit of a mess, really.

The anti-holy Joes who post on this site are a scream. They can’t help but rush to the moral high ground by kicking atheist creations like communism and Nazism into the ditch when they think no one’s watching. Then there they stand and say to the religious, you have nothing on us, nothing at all.

You are fooling no one, fellows - unless the objective is to fool yourselves...

Phil @ 20.31 "Hitler used Darwin's Theory of Evolution to justify removing the "weak" from the society. " Yes and Bernard Shaw, founder of Fabianism, also favoured eugenics, the murder of those whose lives were not "useful" and suggested the idea of "humane" gas chambers for this purpose. Ideas greatly favoured by Nazi's. Bernard Shaw said he was nor a member of the communist party but he said that Karl Marx was a "great Fabian". Oh and Marx defined his goal as "dethroning God". No the values of the "progressives" and the "modernisers" are not attractive in the long term

Hannah @21.59 "I doubt we will see people being sent to slave labour camps or people being exterminated en mass for simply disagreeing with gay marriage." You miss the point, the atheist aka homosexual agenda is to remove God from the state and make it Godless. This is what we see in China, Korea and what we saw in the USSR for much of the last century. It is only where the state is Godless that you see the mass extermination by the governing elite of their own people. Kinderling very helpfully gave us some numbers China 73 million dead, USSR 59 million dead, Korea 3 million dead, Cambodia 3 million dead. This is the human cost of atheism and yes before that many, many more were sent to slave labour camps. Such is the nature of man made ideologies based on the lie of atheism. You underestimate the protection granted by having God acknowledged by the governing class at your peril.

"Atheism is the state of being without a belief in a theistic god or gods."

Lol - a state of being that manifests itself materially and spiritually.

It's what it leads to politically, socially and economically that's the issue.

It's ironic that the one place a liberal-atheist can live freely to pursue pleasure and avoid pain is in democracies based on Christianity. Where else? Of course, as the "creed" spreads like a virus the odds are we all suffer pain as the pursuit of fleeting pleasurere takes centre stage.

Whilst communism has an atheistic attribute, it's much more than just that attribute.

No, it isn't; that's the whole point of everything the religious contributors to this board have been saying. If you begin from a totally materialist assumption, you end up with Communism, and you're assumptions will always be totally materialist - or at least determinist - if you are not religious. Communism rests on atheism and could not have justified the massacres it perpetrated without atheism.

I'd probably say it's more likely that if you begin from a materialist position you'll eventually reach a set of conditions (either personally or societally) where some deeply unpleasant human activities will broadly be acceptable.

For the most part, Western atheists will not be in the business of doing anything nasty to anyone or trying to permanently put the opposition out of life, because for the most part there's no reason to: the only "atheists" who go around stabbing people are the certifiably insane like Stephen Farrow. But unless you have an arbitrary system of morality which you're willing to go to the death for, chances are their counterparts in less salubrious conditions will not have any difficulty in translating opposition to religion (a competing system for power) into more drastic actions.

The comments to the effect that something might be wrong with religious people's brains are all fairly innocuous when we're sitting at nice desks with a mug of tea; it's in the collapse of the Soviet Union - or perhaps the collapse of the West one day - that it translates into crushing religious vermin in order for the people to rise again unemcumbered by superstition.

Of course - all that could just as easily be applied, almost without variation, to every religious despot or wave of religiously-motivated violence in history.

But the key thing, at least so far as Christianity is concerned (I don't make any claim for any other faith), is that such acts fall into the same category: they are attempts to shore up worldly power, and the product of a religious mindset that has become fixated on the things of the earth.

If you follow Christ to the cross there is no depravity that can be inflicted, nor circumstance too dire, even to the point of losing one's life, that can move you from God's Grace. It's why our martyrs don't take people with them, and it's why this isn't a "true scotsman" argument - it's the core of Christianity to be willing to sacrifice oneself rather than allow the triumph of sin.

Interestingly I read this in Peter Horrobin's book "Healing through Deliverance" and as a man who with his team deals with the consequences of homosexuality every day and has done so for 30 years, I would say that this piece is written with authority.

19.7.6 page 388

Homosexuality and Lesbianism

The homosexual lifestyle is expressly forbidden in Scripture. There are several references underlining this in both the Old and the New Testaments (eg Leviticus 18:22; Romans1:26-32). No amount of reinterpretation of the Holy Scripture in the light of social or cultural considerations can so moderate the implications of the Word of God on these issues as to convince even the most liberal of theologians that the Holy Scripture says anything but that in the eyes of God homosexuality and lesbianism are wrong.

What I have observed, however, is that amongst those who advocate such things such as the "gay Christian movement" there is a marked aversion to respecting the authority of Holy Scripture on anything. Once having declared that homosexual relationships are acceptable, one can do nothing else but adopt an equally liberal view of the rest of Holy Scripture. There is then no longer any standard that can reasonably be upheld that is based on scriptural truth.

Indulgence in homosexual relationships of any type provide clear grounds for the demonic that it is rare to find someone who has been a victim of homosexual abuse or someone who has willingly, even in ignorance, had such contact with people who is not demonized and in need of deliverance. For example, there are many men who as young boys were wrongfully touched by older men in homosexual abuse. This victimization, as well as intentional homosexual involvement, can sometimes lead to demonically induced impotence inside an otherwise Godly marriage.

... There are many potential causes of homosexuality, but I believe that in all cases the option of condoning homosexual sin, on the grounds that the homosexual person did not choose to be homosexual and therefore has no personally discretion in the matter, avoids the issue of a spiritual source being at the root of the homosexual tendency. I believe that following confession and repentance, homosexuals can be delivered and healed and that this should be the normal Christian response to a homosexual who seeks help. It does not help the person to condone the sin attached to the lifestyle when he knows in his spirit that God has made it very clear that homosexual sin is contrary to His plans and purposes for the man.

The basis possible causes of homosexual tendencies, as seen from the deliverance point of view, are as follows:

a) A generational spirit of homosexuality being passed down through either the mother or the father. This could come from the parents themselves or from much further back in the generational line. The curse of sexual sin in the line would appear to go much further back than the curses of three or four generations. Deuteronomy talks of about ten generations (Deuteronomy 23:2).

The generational sin could be anal sex between a married man and a women. Their son could then receive a spirit that will induce anal sexual behaviour, which can be with either a man or a woman. Once the behaviour is repeated with a man, the door is open to receive the spirit of homosexuality on top of the spirit of perversion through anal sex.

b) Rejection of the sexuality of a baby so that deep down it receives the message in its spirit that it is the wrong sex. (Remember sex is spiritual, and sexual expectations of the parents will inevitably affect the spirit of the baby.) The child will then, probably subconsciously, try to live up to the sexual expectations of the parents and perform as the opposite of what he actually is. Rejection by parents is fertile ground for the demonic and will form an effective gateway for a spirit of homosexuality to enter the developing child.

c) Rebellion against parents who only love the child because of his gender. For example, a boy who is specially loved by his father because he is male may feel rejection in every other area of his life and rebel against his parent's preference for boys.

d) Homosexual sexual abuse is perhaps the most common source of homosexual demonisation. Not uncommonly, it can even enter through children abusing each other, especially if there is a generational spirit of homosexuality in one of the children that will push the child into behaviour that he or she has not been trained in by the parents.

e) Maternal domination leading to homosexuality or parental domination leading to lesbianism. The man who is dominated by his mother that to look for a wife would be seen by his mother as rejection of her will often look to other men for sexual fulfilment and enter a homosexual lifestyle as a result. The reverse happens with women who have been wrongfully controlled by their fathers.

f) Willing homosexual relationships. Some people who have no previous background of homosexual relationships, either personally or generally, are willing to try anything. Male or female homosexual relationships are just one of the world's deviant possibilities that demons suggest to the potential libertine.

Demons will use any of the above routes to enter a person and distort their sexuality. There is a way back, but it requires a determination to bring one's life into harmony with God's will. The gateway is full confession and repentance. Unless the homosexual is willing to see that homosexual or lesbian behaviour is sin, there cannot be any deliverance, and the Christian homosexual is condemned to a lifetime of sexual pain."

It's astonishing that anyone could deny that Communism and atheism are not one in the same. We all know the famous qoute by Karl Marx, "religion is the opiate of the people". The Bolsheviks unleashed an immediate war on religion after the 1917 Revolution and ruthlessly continued this persecution on a grand scale during the following decades resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Christian priests, bishops, monks, nuns and millions of Orthodox believers.

The Soviets didn't create The League of Militant Atheists, Society of the Godless, and the Union of the Godless because they respected religion.

Lenin summed up the USSR's views toward relgion succinctly:

"Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class."

This attitude is with us today in a pop culture that constantly sneers and trashes religion, especially Christianity,at every opportunity. The Christmas season every year is a time when the athiests and Christophobes are at their most vicious. They are out in full force offended and protesting public creches, Christmas carols, and Christmas trees trying to have all this joy celebrating the Prince of Peace banned.

Dodo, you're still all over the place. You've seen some dots scattered around and you've linked them all up to make a picture you rather like. You've described me many times here as amoral yet I'm now a consequentialist in moral philosophy terms. I refer to JS Mill in terms of political philosophy and you find he wrote about Utilitarianism when you Google him. You look up the key words and you get to the Wikipedia page on Consequentialism. You lift out that key phrase about paradigmatic example of a consequentialist moral theory pretty much word for word because it talks about hedonistic utilitarianism and, like, hedonism is the sort of dubious stuff that went on in the 60s right? Well, I'm afraid there's a bit more to it than that. For starters, I'm not a Utilitarian in moral philosophy terms despite talking about JS Mill in political philosophy terms. A key thing I say on a regular basis is that people often work on the unstated assumption that there is a single, coherent moral philosophy to find. I very much doubt there is. If you can understand what I'm saying there then I think we can avoid some of this pointless stuff.

Quick example. Utilitarianism, JS Mill style, is a moral philosophy with a single moral principle from which all other moral principles are derived. I have a notion of fairness which has something to do with equality. How do Utilitarians get to something like that? Perhaps Rule Utilitarians get somewhere close but that's not how I've argued for it here in the past.

But with the media clamour over the royal baby reaching fever pitch, betting agencies are now taking bets on whether the royal baby will be B, L, O, B, G, O, S, Q, U, A, T. This sexual orientation and gender identity key has taken on something of a developing nature itself, starting just with G (Gay), then moving onto L (Lesbian), only later to develop into B (Bisexual) and later still, T (Transgender). More recently, the sexual orientation and gender identity key developed U (Unsure), Q (Questioning), (B) Bestialsexual (O) Omnisexual, A (Asexual) or O (Other) and later still than this, indeed a most recent addition - S (Straight). As we know, only 1 in 200 babies are born straight.

Ben Summerskill of Stonewall said, "We're really hoping that this baby will be a homosexual. For us, a homosexual on the royal Throne would be something of a publicity coup and would raise the status of the homosexual agenda in Great Britain."

"Who knows, perhaps one day we could see our first royal gay wedding? What a royal and truly gay day that would be! If that happened, then there would be a royal wedding that the gay community could celebrate with the rest of the nation. Then, no matter what gender the baby is, we'd definitely have a queen on the throne!" He said.

Summerskill continued, "Obviously, if the baby is transgender then that would be great for the transgender community as well. While the recent foetal scan shows a union jack flag, rather than a rainbow, initial images of the royal baby don't fill us, the homosexual community, with hope, but the science on the 'homosexual gene' is still a work in development itself, yielding, as it has, a complete lack of evidence that the condition is genetic."

The Royal household, meanwhile, refused to comment on the potential sexual orientation or gender identity of the royal baby saying that the couple and their unborn baby would like, at this time, their 'privacy to be respected'.

As international interest in the royal baby intensifies, the run up to the birth of a future King, or indeed Queen, will see a renewed interest in the United Kingdom in the whole subject of marriage, children and family life which could inspire another 'baby boom' in the country.

The Government is said to be very concerned about such a possibility of renewed interest in reproduction and will be, according to one minister, 'watching trends in marriage and births with a very concerned eye.'

"As a point of fact. Hitler used Darwin's Theory of Evolution to justify removing the "weak" from the society."

Citation please. My understanding is that Hitler was dismissive of Darwin.

Now, let me try two quote on you, and see if you can correctly ascribe them. To help you out one is Hitler, the other Luther.

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord"

"For, as we have heard, God's anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them"

Which is which, Phil?

And can I presume that now, rather than blame the holocaust on the science of Darwin, that in future you will blame it on the Christianity of Luther, and ceaselessly endeavour to correct those misguided enough to deny it?

LondonVicar: "And all this, remember folks, is to please some 1% of the population."

If 1.6% of the population supposedly attend weekly CofE services and slightly fewer attend weekly Catholic services then what of those who assign it as a belief in their mind.Is a gay individual defined only as one who participates in the act or one who has assigned it to himself mentally first, who may not participate, as you state as your personal stance. Are you therefore A Homosexual?Must the participation only define and overule the belief that one holds to that thought first? Christianity is first a belief then an act...are homosexuals only defined if they have so much sex per week/month/year, or must they be marked out of a 1-10 form on a list of what is a homosexual man..a REAL one, then, in the mind of the Gay lobby.

Also, if one follows some of the arguments here then same-sex marriage is part of a wider and longer-term theme of liberalism and individuality.

The decline in all the values of the traditional home and family started to collapse due to moral relativism in all walks of life, that has plagued our society and attacked the heterosexual nucleus of what is a family and what constitutes a home life and the roles therein.

On that basis, a large majority have, through their actions on sex outside marriage and divorce, chosen not to follow Christian sexual morality.

Likewise a vast majority have declined to take up the recruitment offer from the Gay lobby to choose a sexually unnatural morality and lifestyle, therefore it's belief that this is and can/must be accepted as the norm has been debunked by the lack of participation by the vast majority.

I'd keep away from the numbers for justifications if I were you.

Why, it never stops the Gay Lobby from falsifying them for personal gain?

The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.

The earth continues to go round, whether it’s the man who kills the tiger or the tiger who eats the man. The stronger asserts his will, it’s the law of nature. The world doesn’t change; its laws are eternal.

Both quotes from From Hitler's Table-Talk by Norman Cameron and RH Stevens

We could quote this stuff back and forth all day; I do it only to illustrate a particularly dirty little debating society trick of atheists which at once makes them look (and feel) as though they're incredibly clever while actully proving nothing (as invariably happens in debating societies). You demand a citation (as David B has done above), knowing full well that nobody actually carries these things around in their head. When your opponent cannot immediately come up with one, he looks foolish; it doesn't matter whether or not he actually is foolish, what matters is how he looks.

The trick also has the more important purpose of diverting attention away from the deep seated, and almost hidden,inconsistancies of your own case. In this instance, the weakness of the atheist case is that Hitler was was only using Darwinian theory as justification for mass murder, or if he did believe that it justified the Holocaust, he clearly misunderstood Darwin. On the face of it, that doesn't appear to be a weakness at all, since it separates the theory of natural selection for the much more questionable notion of social Darwinism.

However, if you separate natural selection from social Darwinism, if you say that the former does not justify the latter and those who claim it does have seriously misunderstood and perhaps even deliberately abused Darwinian theory, then you must allow the same as regards those who have killed in the name of religion. It's both or neither, and you cannot have the jam on both sides of the bread. However, that does not suit the atheist mind, so instead we get the debating society tricks and rhetorical flourishes.

"A key thing I say on a regular basis is that people often work on the unstated assumption that there is a single, coherent moral philosophy to find. I very much doubt there is.

And you say I'm all over the place - you haven't even got faith there is any moral underpinning for your declared atheism! Utilitarian, hedonistic, consequentialist and now, it seems, a moral relativist. I suppose all this sounds better than amoral.

Are not our members of Parliament in an implied feduciary relationship to us, it's electorate and can turn that loyalty expected from them against us and the democratic process by ignoring this relationship and its legality by their actions going against equity?

There is tremendous power that lies at the heart of the job of a “member of parliament”, and it also leads immediately to consideration of the duty to constituents that must accompany that loan of power given to them for a fixed term. Irrespective of what was the motivation of an individual to put themselves forward for public office, once in Parliament that individual is entrusted with a unique role wherein he or she has the capacity to impact on the lives of the nation and impose legal obligations on us.

Fiduciary duty is the duty of loyalty that is owed by the powerful party to the vulnerable party when the two are in a fiduciary relationship and the decisions of one can have an effect on another whether financial or legal. The fiduciary relationship can also be characterised as a vehicle used to impose duties on individuals with power over the interests of others (Which sounds what SSM is/will be towards those who disagree and who can suffer legal punitive measures by imposition if the feduciary principle is ignored).

Fiduciary relationships can be those that are not pre-existing, recognised categories of fiduciary relationships, but rather those which arise as a result of the facts of a given situation such as the imposition of SSM and its consequences that could have been legally foreseen.

The basic principles of feduciary concepts under the law can be defined roughly that; first, the fiduciary must have scope for the exercise of discretion or power. Second, the fiduciary must be able to unilaterally exercise that power or discretion so as to affect the beneficiary’s legal or practical interests. Third and finally, the beneficiary in a fiduciary relationship must be peculiarly vulnerable or at the mercy of the fiduciary holding the discretion or power (The Churches?).

The standard of conduct by the feduciary gives substance to the “conceptualisation of loyalty” found in the fiduciary doctrine, and demands at least that the fiduciary not act where there is a conflict between the duty to the beneficiary and the interest of the fiduciary, and prohibits the fiduciary from making a profit as a result of being in a fiduciary position (such as trying to 'detoxify' a brand or increase 'electoral viability' perhaps). A breach of fiduciary duty is found where there has been “unauthorised conflict or benefit,” where they privilege their own interests to those they are obligated to serve (Just a better chance of more votes!!).

Members of Parliament: To whom do they owe obligations to... To the Crown, to the Constitution and the Rule of Law and to their Constituents!

Edmund Burke stated: “It is [the member’s] duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to their [his constituents’]; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own.”

In order for our House of Commons to truly be accountable to its people, any decisions made by members must be open for appraisal and input, such as the enforcement by legislation for SSM. The decisions themselves must be made public, as they are. This can then beg the question... Was this a decision that should have been made and why now? and why was the request for a consultation process given then ignored PUBLICLY!- The Nation must know not only what the decision was, but also that we can have a window into the decision making process itself. As most of this chatter to impose this legislation is done behind cabinet doors and darkened lobby rooms and anyone disagreeing must, Ipso Facto, be a bigot, we are forced to trust that our representatives will be thinking of our interests as they make these decisions behind closed doors, and that they will make a decision in a way that is not influenced by their own self interest or in the interest of anyone other than their constituents, who will be negatively affected by such changes and possible legal action.

David B, you never said whether my earlier example fulfils your criteria. Do you now admit that there has been killing and persecution in the name of atheism, and thus such a thing in principle is more than possible?

Cardinal Hume remarked that he wasn't too worried about atheism, which he thought was really quite rare. He said the greatest danger came from idolatry, making an object of worship out of the state or the process of history or natural selection or whatever bogus divinity is intellectually fashionable.

I don't know whether the Albanian example would be considered more as an example of atheism attacking religion or totalitarianism attacking anything that might constitute an opposition.

It is something that merits looking at further, though, and I confess that I find it disquieting.

What is certain, though, is that Hoxha and his regime were a pretty bizarre totalitarian bunch, and very far removed from the sort of secularism which is opposed to favouring any religion over any other religion, or religion over non religion or vice versa, as far as individual beliefs and practices consistent with law go.

Absolute freedom of religion seems a very bad idea to me - we don't really want people going round killing people they believe to be witches, do we?

"Absolute freedom of religion seems a very bad idea to me - we don't really want people going round killing people they believe to be witches, do we?"

Wouldn't murder laws cover this? This "absolute freedom" sounds more like "absence of law", or para-legal vigilantism if you're envisaging the likes of Matthew Hopkins.

More to the point: an absolute freedom of belief would allow me to believe that witchcraft is the work of Satan, to be opposed, and a genuine threat to the good of the realm - I could even believe that witches deserved death for their crimes - but if I sought to achieve their death or unlawful punishment, then the law would rightly step in. Of course, the real difficulty with witchcraft is that nobody much takes it seriously any more: killing people for it comes off as being as rational as killing people for leaving out a mince pie for Santa (anagram of Satan don't you know?) to the modern mind. So when you're saying: we musn't let people kill witches, what you're really saying is, we mustn't let insane people out to kill people (Wiccans or otherwise), because only an insane person would believe witchcraft is effective and take a knife to them.

But one doesn't have to cast about too long to find an analogy: the ever present fear of radical Islamism lurking on our campuses; the pamphlets that possess dark powers to transform bright young students into suicide bombers, the secret cabals that seem to brainwash attenders, and of course, the shadowy figures who lurk off stage, summoned by the odd email, blackberry messenger, or human mule across the Afghan-Pakistani border. We take actions against such things because we find the threat they pose terrifyingly real, and because we see with perfect clarity the mental power such ideologies exault in.

We might well be deeply uncomfortable with an Islamist-Finder General roaming the countryside, and we might still want to punish people who took the law into their own hands - but then in that sense, we're not much different from our witchcraft-believing forebears.

Okay, but I think were it the reverse situation, and a state had declared itself Christian and in consequence started killing and persecuted prominent atheists then you would (rightly) hold our faces to it as an example of Christian persecution of atheists.

For what it's worth, Albania notwithstanding, I find the idea of killing in the name of atheism generally unlikely, but only as unlikely as killing in the name of theism; that is to say, atheism is not a comparable category to Christianity; Christianity is a subset of theism, which is the real corollary of atheism. And people have killed for atheist philosophies, such as communism, where atheism is an important part, though not the only one as you rightly point out.

I don't think anyone's really proposing some kind of vigilante regime whereby Christians impose Mosaic laws on the populace. However I suspect you would also be opposed to a government imposed death penalty for witchcraft, so I'm not sure the example's all that germane.

"JS Mill style, is a moral philosophy with a single moral principle from which all other moral principles are derived. I have a notion of fairness which has something to do with equality. How do Utilitarians get to something like that? Perhaps Rule Utilitarians get somewhere close but that's not how I've argued for it here in the past."

"A key thing I say on a regular basis is that people often work on the unstated assumption that there is a single, coherent moral philosophy to find. I very much doubt there is."

And you claim I'm " ... not makng any sense at all now. Moral underpinning for my atheism? What does that even mean? You can't just make this stuff up as you go along."

Have you a moral or ethical code or not and what is it based on?

And I'm not seeking trouble at all, just trying to understand what is the core of your morality and what it rests on. You've stated it isn't a single, coherent philosophy.

The Atheists might[eventually] succeed in pushing Christianity underground but Christianity has survived centuries of persecution and actually has performed better under persecution.It is when the State joined itself to Christianity that the rot set in.

So with Christianity' out of the way'Islam will presumably rush in to fill the' spiritual vacuum' formed.I wonder how will the secularists and the liberals deal with Islam?.

Mr AIB @ 19.48 9/12 posted, '..and in fact, I'd be more than willing to mount a defence of much of historical religious persecution by pointing out just how central the political aims of secular powers have been to their creation.'

And at 18.30 you have started to enlarge on the topic, which seems to be the genesis of something very interesting indeed.

It is our own burden to be confronted by the twin threat of militant secularism and militant Islam. Fighting a war on two fronts is never easy, but we have no alternative. Consequently as time goes on one starts to see ancient and formerly incomprehensible outrages like the Spanish Inquisition in a slightlty different light.

I seem to recall Hitler's praise of Islam from that same book "Hitler's Table Talk". If it wasn't there it was from another source. No matter, Hitler often praised Islam, saying he wished the Germans and other Nordic peoples had converted to Islam rather than the Christianity which he thought of as weak and of course "unfit" for Germans because of it's Jewish roots. Hitler called Jesus Christ "effeminate" while at the same time he praised Mohammed for his love of war, showing no mercy, and violence. Traits Hitler thought were perfect for a warrior people like the Germans. Not many today know that there were Nazi Waffen SS Divisions recruited from Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, mainly from Boznia. The largest Muslim SS Division was called "Hanjar" (Sword) which helped German Nazi SS units kill almost 800,000 Serbian Orthodox Christians after 1943. One of Hitler's most evil pals was the former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Muhammad Haj al- Husseini, who left the Middle East in 1940 and lived in Berlin during the war and broadcast hatred of the Jews and the Allies in Arabic to the majority Muslim Middle East. Husseini, one of the world's leading Muslim clerics of the time. visited Auschwitz several times and even watched Jews die in the gas chambers. He was thrilled. I'm not making this up. That is what he was quoted as saying after one such visit.

Hitler may get his wish for a Muslim Germany, posthumously, if present demographic changes for that country continue with it's low indigneous birthrate and the rapid growth of Germany's several Million immigrant Muslims. If Turkey is admitted into the EU in thee near future that will mean legal and open borders into all EU countries by 80 million Muslim Turks. It will also mean illegals will cross from Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc into Turkey and take a train to the European country of their choice with no one asking where they came from. Germany is the prefered country for Muslim Turks.

Maybe Goering was prophetic when he told his American captors in May 1945 that within 100 years there would be a monument built in his memory in Berlin.

Hitler's "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle) has been a best seller in Turkey during the past ten years. Hard to believebut it is true. In 2005 fifty thousand copies sold in less than three months which is a huge sales figure for Turkey, equivalent to 250,000 copies in the United States.

Len, my secular ideals and wish for (within rather loose limits) freedom of speech and action still allow for reasonable laws, for which religious freedom of conscience should carry no more and no less weight than any other freedom of conscience.

So I would be happy to see laws passed and enforced forbidding circumcision (without pressing medical reasons) for males and females below the age of consent, against child marriages, giving draconian punishments for forced marriage of any age group, and for laws regarding reasonably humane slaughter of animals for food to have no religious get out clause.

I like to think that my view that pandering to religion is a bad idea has at least the virtue of even-handedness.

Atheists seem to counter Christianity with 'science'as though this will answer mankind`s problems or at least go a long way towards solving them .

There have been giant leaps forward with technology in the last Century and some of it has been good.

But as soon as man learnt he could construct a plane and fly he wasted little time in finding a way to fit machine guns and bombs to it!.

Science(scientia)means 'knowledge' and when this is discovered apart from God the man will use it in many cases for corrupt ends.It was the desire for knowledge apart from God ('you can be as gods'... the satanic lie) which led to the fall of man)

Man (through science) has now gained the means not only to destroy himself but the rest of humanity as well... cruel and wicked men will not hesitate to use what 'science' has placed at their disposal.

David: You know that putting male and female circumcision as two varieties of the same practice is rather disingenuous. If your food reference refers to halal and kosher slaughter then I presume you'd have been a vegetarian for most of human history, before we could fire bolts directly into animals' brains.

Do you really believe that book you have read? I read your post and I went from anger, to disbelief to general hilarity. If you think that gays, such as my sister, are demon possessed and or that it is something to do with a hereditary curse, then G-d help you.

Are you telling me that a person who questions ritual killing of animals because of deeply held beliefs against cruelty toward animals is to be immediately labeled an anti Semite? (or anti Muslim)?

Are all members of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) who oppose ritual animal slaughter anti Semites?

I don't think so.

We still live in societies where freedom of speech exists and open debate is allowed in order that honest people can give their views and not be called names or falsely accused as "haters". No religion, political system, or famous person is above criticism in a free society.

People always looking for "code words" where none exist better make certain their lives are free from prejudice and bigotry before they start sniffing for real or imagined bigotry in others and pointing the finger of guilt or blasphemer at them.

If a person a religious Jew then what about these quotes from the Torah about homosexuals which "G-d" specifically condemns:

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads"

Deuteronomy: 22:5 "Women are not to wear men's clothing and vice versa -- it's an "abomination unto the Lord."

Deuteronomy: 23 17-18 "God says not to bring any whore, sodomite, or dog into the house of the Lord. For "these things are an abomination to the Lord."

It seems to me anyone who was concerned about dietary rules "G-D" gave them would also heed what their "G-d" tell them about the "evils" of homosexuality.

Please. No name calling. I simply asked a few civil questions and gave my point of view.

It is more to do with if an atheist argues that Luther was no better than Hitler (save for degree or consequence) then the same atheist should not then proclaim their hostility to male circumcision and or go on about killing animals 'humanely', which from experience is an alternative way of attacking Jewish shechita.

If I could do a link in the same way as Belfast, I'd point to the fact that we had these discussions quite a few times in the past... So you must have a poor memory? If so, then I am happy to re-educate you on the finer points.

I am not a fan of Luther. However, to be fair, if you read about his life you will discover that in his youth and after he left the Church he defended Jews and gave them his support. Luther changed in his later years and could have become mentally unballanced. He also became obsessed with scatalogical references which he included in his writings, rants, and even his sermons which is an indication he may have had a mental breakdown at some point.

As a Catholic I find Luther's valid criticism of Church corruption, especially in Rome, as well as his condemnation of the selling of indulgences and fake relics valid. I believe this brilliant Biblical scholar and professor when he was a Catholic priest and even his life as a reformer offers us a lot to admire.

He was absolutely wrong to support the German princes instead of the peasants in the war that followed his break with Rome.

Bluedog: It is our own burden to be confronted by the twin threat of militant secularism and militant Islam. Fighting a war on two fronts is never easy, but we have no alternative.

It is on three fronts: the inversion of the Father (Fascism) Spirit (Socialism) and Son (Pederasty), those who give out new identities to blind every man, woman and child respectively. For the natural family can see them for who they are: The weak macho-posuring male, the resentful-bitch feminist, the sexual pervert.

This is why marriage between one man and one woman must be removed as it is a noble protection for the next gnration. This is why they are aligned as one army supporting one another.

These death-cults, that live off the spoils of others, have walked every society into poverty, slavery and destruction.

"If you think that gays, such as my sister, are demon possessed and or that it is something to do with a hereditary curse, then G-d help you."

I'm am no expert. But my experience is that demon possession is real. I am rather a coward about demons and run rather than confront.

I am not saying your sister is possessed. Her writing suggests otherwise. (Yes you can get a some idea from what a person says.)

If this sounds really weird. Well yes it is.

We need to remember that prayer is a HUGELY powerful. The sad thing is most of the time we do not give God the chance to help us find him through prayer. We say "its OK I'm fine, you don't have to pray for me.... really....I'm fine... I'll sort it..... don't trouble God over me". (Now THAT really IS LOL)

David K. The Inspector was rather surprised as a school boy to learn how much of a female’s abdomen is devoted to the purpose of reproduction. Does it not strike you as bizarre if a female rules out the possibility of mating with a man for all time. In other words, something wrong somewhere....

The problem I think you have is that you do not (understandably) appreciate the Jewish faith, practices, mentality, history ,philosophy,exegesis or outlook.

Instead you seem to desire to cast Judaism as being nothing more than the "old" Testament and therefore think that by scrambling around for quotes and suggesting that we (for whatever reason) take everything as literal, without comment or thought, sub- text or Rabbinical exegesis, that this somehow represents our faith.

This is untrue and shows a regrettable lack of understanding on your part.

An example of this is the Leviticus quotation you gave me in your comment above .

I think previously you have used this to attack the 'barbarity 'of Judaism and contrasted it with the Christian New Testament

Yet you are now implying that I am more concerned with food laws than joining in the frenzy against gays here. I cannot see the consistent line of argument here.

I have argued before that I don't see gays as being evil or demon possessed. I find that from my understanding of my faith that the gay sexual act is wrong, I would disagree with gay marriage in the Synagogue.

But there is a big leap from that to some of the rhetoric and comments made here on the anti side suggesting that the 'end of the world is nigh'. Good polemics, bad logic.

Previously, we discussed Judaism and the death penalty before and I think from memory I advised you that even in ancient times, the burden of proof was so great that the death sentence was never carried out and today the death penalties in the Torah are unenforceable and would not be 'legal' anyway.

So I am afraid you'll have to wait for another opportunity to get onto an anti-jewish bangwagon.

"I think previously you have used this to attack the 'barbarity 'of Judaism and contrasted it with the Christian New Testament"

I never said any of the words above. They are entirely from your immigination. You are assuming too much and putting words into my mouth. Just like your reading things into fantasy "code words"that were never intended as a "signal" by others here.

I don't use verbal semaphores. I simply tell the truth as I see it. If people don't like it they can me to go to hell. Holding a grudge is not my style.

As far as I can recall I have never discussed the death penalty here. I may be wrong.

When "Code word" accusations are made this becomes a code word for me that people are looking for others to "slip" in their conversation and then label them "haters" when no hatred was ever intended. Code word is a signal to me that a censor wants to create an atmosphere of tension where people can't discuss things honestly. Especially if they have important and valid moral or historical differences with others.

I should say that it is rather important to make sure everyone is speaking with the same language, as it becomes very easy to blur distinctions and talk at cross-purposes.

Secularity for instance, is as old - well, not quite as old as the Catholic Church in Europe but not far off it. The idea of a distinct separation between temporal and spiritual defined Christendom.

Secularism on the other hand, seems primarily interested in denying the spiritual any power over its traditional domain of public morality, and instead expanding temporal power. Which is why enlightened chaps feel quite even-handed in determining, and even demanding in law, that religious conscience can and should be heavily circumscribed within boundaries set by non-believers.

Princes and EU Commissioners telling religious leaders to go stuff themselves is nothing new, though, and was, I assure you, going on well before a certain monarch of these isles got testy with Rome.

I'm not sure I necessarily feel the urge to see the Spanish Inquisition in a favourable light - and I've written before about my intense discomfort at the thinking of Thomas More, who on any other day but the ones where he was signing Protestant death warrants I should probably find a natural ally.

However, I would contend with anyone who wishes to use past religious persecution in Europe as the basis for an argument that it was "religion out of control" or "the Church overriding secular power". Quite the contrary usually - monarchs were up to their armpits stirring, championing, and defending religious disputes when it suited their ends. The important thing to remember about the medieval Church, is that outside of the Papal States, it possessed no temporal power. Every heretic burnt at the stake (and actually there were very few before the Reformation - none in England before 1401) was burnt because a secular power had ordered it; and the vast majority of the time, far from it being an all powerful Church trying to pin down its opponents, it was a fairly impotent Church bemoaning the fact that secular authorities weren't taking their responsibilities seriously. Sometimes all we're hearing is the regurgitation of oldpropaganda.

That's the Church though. I have no idea whether this would hold up with the relationship between Islamic clergy and secular powers elsewhere in the world.

Mr Kinderling @ 22.43, I don't understand how a double threat can become a triple threat by virtue of those threatened identifying three targets of aggression, which is the consequence of your statement: 'It is on three fronts: the inversion of the Father (Fascism) Spirit (Socialism) and Son (Pederasty), those who give out new identities to blind every man, woman and child respectively.'

We can agree that our assailants share an objective in seeking the destruction of Christianity. However the secularists also seek the destruction of all organised religion including Islam. It follows that collaboration between the Islamists and the secularists is nil and likely to remain that way.

You state, 'I'm not sure I necessarily feel the urge to see the Spanish Inquisition in a favourable light.'

Whereas I had said, 'Consequently as time goes on one starts to see ancient and formerly incomprehensible outrages like the Spanish Inquisition in a slightlty different light.'

Different, not favourable. Different because we seem to be returning to an era where religious belief is proscribed, as it was for Jews and Muslims in post-Reconquista Spain, where the temporal power remained profoundly insecure despite being militarily dominant. That Ferdinand and Isabella, Los Reyes Catholicos, should have chosen to be buried in Grenada is evidence of the importance of the conquest of Andalucia in their lives.

To the eternal shame of Europe it was the Turkish Sultan Murad who took in those Jews expelled from Spain in 1492.

We have to give credit where credit is due. Spain (and Portugal) gave the world brave sea captains and explorers. The Spanish created a formidable naval power along with a great empire before Elizabeth I was born and England had only Ireland as a colony It was Ferdinand Magellan (born in Portugal) who's ship was the first to circumnavigate the world from 1519-1522 under the patronage of King Charles V of Spain. After 1492 Spain went on to have the largest Empire in the world. By the end of the 1500's Spain, under the Hapsburgs, controlled Austria and much of Central Europe, what is today's Belguim and Holland, parts of northern and southern Italy, Sardinia, today's Spain. All of central and south America, several coastal colonies in Africa, all of what is Florida and the Gulf coast of the USA and the south western USA including California, the Phillipines and a colony in India. Not to mention small colonies in what is Oman and the coast of Iran today.

Not a bad job was it? All this before and during the era when Drake and his pirates started their careers attacking Spanish galleons loaded with gold and silver bound for Spain from south America?

I understood that it wasn't your intention to read auto de fes in a favourable light, but I'm very happy to apologise for giving that impression in my reply to you. I've found that it's often necessary to include disclaimers when citing particular topics, mostly to save repetitious tussling.

But I see from the detail of your reply that we are indeed moving in a very similar direction indeed regarding the use of secular power in the realm of morality.

"And you want to ban male circumcision and attack Jewish food laws... so you'd like to abolish central beliefs in Judaism and um and this is from someone who is trying to point score Luther Vs Hitler."

If you look back at the context of what I said you will note that it was not - on this occasion - aimed at the central beliefs of Judaism, but at Islam.

As I said, I do like to be even handed in my suggestions that certain practices central to religions and to different other cultures even when not coloured by religion should be legally proscribed.

I am glad to see that - even if coincidentally - as society has become less religious views on cock fighting and bear and badger baiting, have changed. They are illegal in Britain, and I understand the tide is turning against them in other areas.

There is no central religious aspect to those vices that I know of, but would you suggest that if there were then then the proponents of them should be specially privileged?

I think not, you see, and further think that to be in favour of religious, rather than cultural, prvileges, is an example of how religion is destructive of any moral compass.

The Spanish Inquisition's purpose was to keep Protestant heretics out of Spain. I think that was a correct view from the Spanish perspective. Spain did not have Protestants (maybe handful but not a large segment of their population) and didn't want them in their country to cause the problems that were happening in the terrible religious wars in what is today Germany between Lutherans and Catholics. How was that concept any different from Elizabeth I having Jesuits and others tortured, killed and imprisoned to keep England free of Catholics who wanted a legitimate Catholic monarch back on the throne of England and the Catholic Church restored as the as the Church IN England? The perseution of English Catholics after Herny VIII was not much different in terms of brutality than the Inquisition. Everything I've read indicates at least 60% -70% of the English people during first years of the reign of Elizabeth I would have gladly had the Roman Church restored. If Spain had 1/10 of one percent of it's population Protestant in the mid 1500's I would be surprised.

Depending on who's being persecuted it's not looked upon as persecution. It depends on who's views are threatened that authorizes the cranking of the rack tighter, lighting the flames, ordering the doing drawing and quartering execution of human beings, or chopping off the heads of "traitors" that persecution gets called "persecution".

I think your website says it is akin to a european cafe, so I merely responded in a like minded polemical fashion.

'Cock fighting has been banned in the UK'

Yesss and then I look at this blog and realise that might not be the case... unless we are in a virtual 'fight club'? The first rule of Cranmer is that there is no cranmer?

In any case I take your points at face value, but Judaism does not seek to foster our laws or religion on others, but for the record, Judaism does take animal welfare seriously.

If it ever came to pass that there was a conflict with our religion and the UK law, I think most observant Jews would probably leave to Israel. I hope that doesn't happen, given the religious tolerance in the UK and a history of Judaism dating back to the 1650s, sad if atheism wants it that way really .

A point I would discuss further, but I see others are trying to impress your good self about their religion, so I won't bother as this isn't a game my faith plays and I'm not in the habit of bending my faith to make others feel better.

Finally my sister says your are unwell, so I would like to give my wishes to you for a swift recovery.

We discussed these matters way back at the end of August. I think you even provided similar quotes as you did above. If only I could link in the same way as belfast. But forget about it. I see no point in point scoring.

David B: It seems to me that for all your fine-sounding moralising, you are building castles in the air if you have no grounding for your morality. Can you tell me on what basis you consider female circumcision, for example, to be morally wrong?

"I am glad to see that - even if coincidentally - as society has become less religious views on cock fighting and bear and badger baiting, have changed"

Decent religious and humane people have always hated these practices in the past and condemmned them. Two that come to mind are the Dutch Catholic priest and philosopher Erasmus and the English Catholic, St Thomas More. Both hated all types of blood sports.

Animal sacrifice and mutilation has never and could never be part of Christianity. A few perverted sects allow concepts like "Santeria" and "Voo doo" which is practiced by "Christians" in West Africa and Haiti but this is NOT in any way part of true Christianity.

Please read the life of the beloved and respected St Francis of Assisi, who lived 800 years in Italy, ago the love he had for all animals. Legend has it that once while he was on a long walk through a forest on his way to visit the poor he heard a whining sound. He investigated and found a wolf in agony with a thorn in his foot. St Francis carefully took out the thorn and carried the injured wolf back to his monastery and nursed him back to health. The wolf became St. Francis's inseparable friend and body guard for the rest of the his life.

It was St Francis of Assisi who also gave us the first known creche on Christmas Eve. He used live animals as part of it to recreate the Nativity Scene at Bethelehem on Christmas Eve.

An ass helped The Holy family escape Jesus being killed by King Herod's soldiers and carried Mary and the Baby Jesus on it's back while Joseph walked them to safety in Egypt.

A dove symbolizes the Holy Spirit.

Three of four Gospels are symbolized by animals: St. Mark = a lion, St. Luke = an ox, St. John = an eagle, while St. Matthew has an angel

Christianty, unlike Islam, pagan cults along, a few "religions" is respectful of animals. The Bible says we are stewards of the earth. Animals are God's creatures not to be unnecessarily harmed.

Christains have never sacrificed animals or allowed them to be killed in any type of rituals.

We Protestants need not the lecture from Satan's kingdom regarding morality and the problem with postmodern society. I say this as coherently as you will understand. The few actual Protestants that remain --not just in the Church of England-- but the whole Anglican Communion, and all of the Protestant faith, must come back to Church physically. Because being there spiritually does not keep our institutions intact.

Martin Luther was no slouch. He was ordained in 1507 to the RC priesthood, and in 1508 began teaching theology at the University of Wittenberg. He received a Bachelor's degree in Biblical studies on 9 March 1508, and another Bachelor's degree in the Sentences by Peter Lombard in 1509. On 19 October 1512, he was awarded his Doctor of Theology and, on 21 October 1512, was received into the senate of the theological faculty of the University of Wittenberg, having been called to the position of Doctor in Bible. He spent the rest of his career in this position at the University of Wittenberg. He accomplished all this as a Roman Catholic priest. He was also fluent in Latin, ancient Greek, and Hebrew.

Compare his excellent education and knowlwdge of the Bible and languages to two of the Renaissance Borgia popes Alfons de Borja who ruled as Pope Calixtus III during 1455–1458, and Rodrigo Lanzol Borgia, as Pope Alexander VI, during 1492–1503. Today they are remembered for their corrupt rule during the reign of Alexander VI. They have been accused of many different crimes, including adultery, simony, theft, rape, bribery, incest, and murder (especially murder by arsenic poisoning. Because of their search for power, they made enemies of other powerful families such as the Medici and the Sforza, as well as the influential Dominican friar Savonarola.

Martin Luther saw this corruption when he visited Rome on a pilgrimage a few years later. He was naturally very upset, especially with the sale of indulgences.

Luther tried [desperately]to be a 'good Catholic'...the harder he tried the greater the depression when he failed.This is the cycle of those'good'men who try to please God by their own efforts, by exerting their own willpower over the power of sin.Ironically the more that 'good men' try by their own efforts to overpower sin the stronger sin becomes.History is littered(past and present) with man`s attempt to conquer sin by self effort or 'religious practices'.

Luther grasped the essential fact that it was through faith in the finished work of Christ at Calvary that the victory over sin was won not by self effort.

Luther was by no means perfect and as I have said he had much to un- learn through the religious teaching he had adsorbed through the Catholic Church.

Luther and others could no longer remain in the Catholic Church once their eyes had been opened to the corruption within the Church.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)